Objective Morality to Black Hebrew Israelite and Bad Logic | Apologetics Live 0018

Opening Banter and Show Introduction

This is Apologetics Live with Matt Slick and Andrew Rappaport, part of the community.

Alright, we are live, Apologetics Live. Glad that you are out here with us. We are with our resident apologist, Mr. Matt Slick from CARM, who's been doing Apologetics for almost 40 years. Yeah. And I just want to actually, that was actually just a test.

See, last week he got upset when I said more than 30 years. No, 39. 39. He didn't want to make me the precision. I want to see if you can do the same thing when I said almost 40. I want to see. No, because you're right.

It's almost 40. It's 39. That's the number of mercies in the Bible. I was right when I said, it was right when I said more than 32.

Technically, yeah, but let's not shave off too much. I've been doing this a long time.

A long time. Alright, so this is a show for you folks who are watching live. You can join in. You can ask any kinds of questions you want. We usually do, for the most part, the link to join is at ApologeticsLive .com.

You can see the link. Usually we end up having to wait to put that link in until just before we go live because of the way Google Hangouts work, but we may change that in the future. We do have someone in who says he's a soft atheist, wants to discuss the position of objective standard of morality, so that'll be a good one.

Matt, there's something that happened. I actually didn't get a chance to talk to you yet about this, but stand to reason. I don't know if you're familiar with that ministry, Greg Koukos. Yeah, I've talked to Greg before.

Yeah, so they do a thing where they get their speakers to come in and will go into youth groups and either pretend to be a Muslim or pretend to be an atheist and grill the students, and the students don't know that they're actually Christian.

So these guys realize that there's some tough questions to be answered, and then they start showing how to answer these things simply. Well, I guess someone that's on their mailing list, that they actually invited into one of the youth groups to grill students themselves, a professing atheist, and that person chose not to show but gave the email where they talked about doing this to a guy called the Friendly Atheist, and the Friendly Atheist, I guess, made a mockery of it, saying that they were probably asking soft people just so that they could say, oh, see, they were able to stump the fake atheist, the pretend atheist.

But I kind of saw something that is pretty common that you and I see all the time, guys that say they have really good arguments that come in saying atheism, and then they use dishonesty in their argumentation, where they'll sit there and instead of dealing with real definitions, they just misrepresent.

And so I think that's one of the things we see pretty regularly with a lot of the atheist community, right? Yeah. You know, I try to get him talking. What does he do?

All right. So before we bring the first person in.

I answered the question. I love doing that to you, too. You set me up. I go, yeah, just dead air. It always gets you every time. Well, sometimes they're dishonest. Sometimes their arguments are just not good, you know.

So we should, you know, you're with Karm .org. I don't know if I plug this. Karm .org, Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, 39 years. Matt's been doing it because he likes the precision of it. I'm Andrew Rapport with Striving for Eternity.

And just to give a plug, actually, do I have the camera? I'll give a plug later for the conference we've got coming up with Justin Peters. So we'll probably play that later. But since we've got someone in here, I'm going to add him.

And hint to folks, if you want to get in, and everyone likes to come in at the end and ask all these really great questions and you get good dialogue, come in right when we begin and you get the floor until other people start showing up.

So that's the smart way of doing it. You get most time and we don't have to cut you off. So I just added John here. And John says he's a soft atheist who came in to discuss his position that there is no objective standard for morality.

So you can unmute yourself, John. I hope you can. Can you hear me okay?

Yeah, there we go. So go ahead, ask your question. So basically I was just I see that most people, including Matt Slick, believe in the idea that there's an objective standard of morality. And I believe that this is a mistake.

And I believe I can demonstrate how it's a mistake. Okay, go ahead. So first of all, I believe you believe in the correspondence theory of truth. Is that correct? Yeah, I lean towards that. Okay. Or propositional logic, you know, something is true if it corresponds to a standard.

Basically, yeah. Okay. So first of all, the question is how can you how do we determine what is the correct moral standard? Well, God reveals it to us. But how do we know that how can that possibly be correct if God is simply giving us his biased opinion?

How can it be correct if God is telling us what's right?

Yeah, isn't that just God's subjective opinion? Define what you mean by subjective. Well, objective means it's unbiased by any personal position. Subjective would be biased by their position. Objective means not biased?

Independent of any personal opinion or position, perspective. In relationship to who? In relationship to anyone.

Okay. So is God's declaration of what is right and wrong therefore incorrect? It would be subjective. And if it's based on his character, which would not be subjective because he's absolute, knows all things all the time, knows exactly what is right because it reflects his character, then it's just based on his character.

If you want to call it subjective, then go ahead and call it subjective.

When you say it's right, what do you mean? What's the standard by which you measure that it's right?

God reveals what is right as is consistent with his character.

So basically what you're saying is that it's consistent with God's character is what makes it right? Yeah.

And that's your opinion? That's what God has revealed to us in the Word of God, the Bible.

Okay, but again, you're going with this is what God has revealed. So God reveals his position, his subjective position.

Well, he's telling us what is right and is wrong, and he's telling us so that it's no longer subjective to us, but now it's objective to us.

So you think that something can be objective to us even though it's subjective to somebody else?

Well, the way you're defining subjectivity, you see, if God is the one who knows everything all the time and he reveals to us out of his character what is right, then it becomes an objective truth for us, right?

Wouldn't you agree? I would not agree. Wait a minute. It's not subjective. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. No, no, no, no. If the truth is revealed from God, then to us, isn't that truth then non-subjective to us?

Well, now you're calling it truth. Is not the truth of the moral reality not subjective to us, but objective.

Isn't that correct? Well, again, you're talking about a moral reality being true.

You're assuming something is not true. When God reveals something to us, he reveals something based on his character, what is right and what is wrong. Thou shalt not murder, for example. Then it becomes an objective truth to us.

Is that not correct?

I would say that is not correct.

It's not objective truth to us. So now it's a subjective truth to you? No. It is. It is. It's not subjective. It is not objective. If it's neither subjective or objective, then what is it? It is not. It is subjective.

The question is not whether it's subjective or objective. Wait a minute. How can it be subjective? That means it's based on your personal preference, your personal desires. But if it comes from God, it's not then based on your personal preferences.

So it would be objective to you, wouldn't it?

It would be based on God's personal opinions and desires. I said to you.

You don't really want to answer the question because I've already got you worked into a corner. The fact is God reveals his word to us. He reveals what is morally right. He is the standard of righteousness.

He reveals it to us. The issue of subjectivity and objectivity deals with us. And what we're talking about here is what is morally right and wrong. You don't have all knowledge. You do not know if God exists.

You're a soft atheist. So therefore, the only thing you have is your subjective opinion about things. So you are not qualified to be able to tell us what is objective, particularly when we as Christians tell you that God has revealed what is objective to us.

That's what I'm telling you. So if God reveals something to us, it's no longer, it's not a subjective thing to us.

It's an objective thing to us, isn't it? No, it is not. You want to claim that it's objective to you.

So if God reveals something, it's now it's subjective to us. If he says, don't lie, that means it's just subjected to my opinion.

It is subjective to God's opinion. If God is saying, this is what you got,.

It's yeah, God is absolute. Let's just say it's subjected to God's opinion. I keep asking you about you and you keep misrepresenting the answer by misrepresenting my question. I ask you, let's try it again.

Is not the revealed truth from God to you? And it's objective to you.

Can you answer that? The, the idea that something is objective to me does not make any sense. What do you mean objective? What does objectivity mean? Objectivity means free of any bias. If it is God's.

Wait, wait,.

Can you, can you show me the definition? Show me the definition in an authoritative source. That's what it means. Now, now you want me to appeal to authority? What? Dude, are you serious? Wait, wait, wait a minute.

Let's just go off your subjective opinion. What it is. Okay. Let's just do that. What dictionary would you accept? Whatever you want to use. Tell me what objectivity is. Let's give something besides your subjective opinion of what it really is.

Let's go to something more objective.

Okay. I have to go to a Webster's dictionary. What does it say for objective? Okay. So Webster's dictionary. Okay. And I'll type in the word objective. You should have already done this. This homework, you should have already know what your terms mean.

No, I, I know what my terms mean, but I can't say that they're going to mean the same thing to you. You've already demonstrated that they don't.

Relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence of, or relating to being or object phenomenon or condition in the realm of sensible experience, independent of individual thought and perceptual by all observers.

So what makes you think that your subjective definition is the right one?

No, the, my subjective being my subjective definition being the right one is simply a matter of consensus, just like morality.

Whoa. You complain about appeal to authority. Now you're appealing to argumentum un populum, the majority. No, no, no, no consensus. So consensus is what, what it means now. No, it's a matter of definition.

What's your definition again? What's your definition of objectivity? Free of bias. Free of bias. Okay. Free of personal. Oh, so what you're doing is,. Oh, so by definition, you just define it that way.

Can you demonstrate to me that that's the correct definition to work with? Can you demonstrate it's not? I asked you to demonstrate your assertion to be true.

You're asking me what my definition is.

Yeah. And I asked you if you can verify that it's true. You said free from bias. That's correct.

That is my definition. If you accept my definition, then we have a consensus and we can move forward. If you don't accept my definition, we don't have a consensus and we can't move forward.

Well, I don't accept your definition because I read what the Webster's dictionary, which you referenced, you said use that one. I did. It doesn't agree with you.

I would beg to differ. If we are using Webster's dictionary, it agrees with what I'm saying.

Wow. Um, so relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence that agrees with your definition, that it means free of personal bias. Yes. Wow. Of or relating to, or being an object phenomenon or condition in the realm of sensible experience, independent of individual thought and perceptual by all observers, having reality independent of the mind.

That means without bias. That is correct. Wow. Okay. Um, I guess, uh, then you concede that I'm correct.

Uh, and conceding that, uh, if you want to agree with the Webster's dictionary and I agree with the Webster's dictionary on the definition, then we can move forward. I,.

I glad that you, uh, just acknowledge that I'm correct and that you don't know what you're doing. Thank you. I mean, that was easy. It didn't take much. Um, I think you're being genuine now,. Uh, Oh, thank you.

I, I didn't think that you liked me that much, but I, you know, it's a nice compliment.

Thank you. No, my point is that I think that you're, you're basically assuming that you won without actually demonstrated the, the case. No, I, I, uh, I don't have a new car. No, no, I don't. I don't know where you got that, but, uh, what I'm talking about.

If we don't have a consensus of meaning, we can't move forward. No,.

I'm not bald. What were you getting that? Seriously? What is up with you? Wow. I guess, John, you don't know what you're doing, do you? Because if I'm going to read you a definition and then you just reinterpret it to me, whatever you want it to mean in light of what you desire, then I can do the exact same thing to you.

If you're not going to go with what the consensus of what you required was Webster's dictionary, which does not say what you said. And then you say, but it does say that, how are we going to have any rational discourse whatsoever?

Since you cannot demonstrate to me that you know what you're talking about is subjectivity. You can't define it. When I asked you to define it, you said, you define it. I said, where do you want me to go?

Webster's. You couldn't even define it for yourself. I go there. It doesn't agree with you. And then you say it does. Do you really understand how ridiculous your presentation is so far?

Oh, I understand how you're making it out and how you're trying to put it to the audience that is watching.

I'm not trying to, I'm simply doing what's obvious. You're the one demonstrating that you don't have the ability to think critically in this area. You just defined it in a way, not consistent with what the dictionary said that you want me to reference.

What you want to do is say it means any personal bias. And you say, well, God has a personal, therefore it's not objective. So what you're doing is defining it in a very narrow way, specifically and purposely, which is not done in the dictionary you wanted to cite.

So you can apply it to God so that you can try and win an argument, which really is no argument. Let's look at entry one B. When I asked you specifically, I said, is it objective to you? The truth? You said, no, it's not.

And you said, it's also not subjective. We only have two options here, subjectivity and objectivity. And then I asked you if it's not subjective and it's not objective, then what is it?

Can you answer that question? And my answer was that it's not about subjectivity or objectivity. It's about your, your characterization of it being true.

That's what it is. So that's your subjective opinion about what is true about the word subjectivity and objectivity.

I'd like to reference the one B.

One B of relating to, which I've already quoted several times of being or object of relating to, of being or object, phenomenon or condition in the realm of sensible experience, independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

Yeah.

Yeah. Independent of individual thought. So any individual, individual thought and perceptible by all observers. Okay. Independent of the mind. You are independent of the mind. No, I'm saying that this is the definition of objectivity that we are referring to.

Okay. Existence independent of the mind.

Something that exists without us knowing it exists. No.

It's independent of our mind.

If it's independent of our minds, if it's independent of our minds, then it exists without us having to know it.

Right. This glass I'm holding in my hand. Does this exist independent of your mind? No, I'm seeing it. So you're saying that if you cease to exist, this glass would cease to exist as well. Wow. Good. Does that, did anybody hear me say that?

No, you're seeing it. So you're saying it exists dependent upon your mind. No, I didn't say that. I didn't say that. No, I didn't say that. I didn't say that.

Is it dependent or independent? It's not dependent upon my mind, which is why I said, if a mind is not there, it still exists.

So that makes it not dependent. It makes it independent of your mind.

Not dependent upon the mind for its existence. Which mind is the dictionary talking about there? Any and all. Any and all? Does it say any and all? It doesn't say any and all. It's implied. Okay. So in other words, you've just now defined God out of existence because an object exists objectively without any mind.

So since God would know about it, it can't exist or he can't exist. Is that what you're trying to say? No, that's not what I'm trying to say at all.

What are you trying to say? I'm trying to say that things which exist in material reality exist independent of whether or not I'm thinking about them, you're thinking about them, or you're thinking about them.

That's what objectivity is. Okay, we come to a consensus of what that means. To us, yes. No, not to us.

To us makes it subjective. It does not depend on our existence for its existence.

It doesn't depend upon anyone. Anyone's existence. How do you know that's the case?

So let's take an example, okay? Wait a minute. How do you know the glass is not dependent upon anyone's existence? I don't know that. You just said it's not dependent upon anyone's.

No, I'm saying that that's what the standard of objectivity is. Okay. You know, you're running in circles because you know what's going on. You know, you know where the problem is and you're just running around in circles, playing word games.

No,.

Don't tell me what I know. You're not making any sense to me. Okay, well, let me back up, back up and try and make some point. Try and make some point. I mean, I don't know what you're doing.

Okay. You believe in the correspondence theory of truth, correct? I said, I lean towards that way. Yes. If you lean, does that mean you believe it or you don't believe it? I lean towards that. Okay, good enough.

That's what I said. What's your next statement? Okay. So the correspondence theory of truth requires that a standard exists, correct? I, I can't say yes or no. A standard against which you would measure any proposition.

I can't say yes or no. I don't know what you mean by proposition. John, define your term. Don't, you define it. So for example, if you want to say that this glass exists, the standard against which you measure is existence.

Standard.

Are you serious? The standard that I measure is it's a glass is against its own existence.

But I claim that this glass exists. Yeah. The claim is measured against its actual existence. Does it actually exist? Or I could say this is a toaster.

Then you measure the claim of, is this glass a toaster? You're just making statements. You're just making statements that linguistically agree with what the statements are revealing about an object. Okay.

Now what?

Okay. So then if we're going to say that there is a standard. Standard. What's a standard? That's a great question. So a standard is an object or a thing against which we measure other things or compare other things.

All right. Okay. Let's go with that. Yeah. Okay. So if there is a, an objective standard, then the objective standard must be a standard, which is independent of any particular opinion position.

Oh, so by the definition that you're using, you automatically win by defining it the way you do. That's all you're doing. You're saying A is B because B is A. What you're doing is you're saying objectivity means that there can be no mind involved in anything about the knowledge concept or knowledge claim about it.

Therefore, that means God can't have any objective standard easily. That's what you've done. All you've done is defined it that way.

Not just God, but anybody. There cannot be any objective standard.

All you've done is just defined it. That's all you've done is just defined it that way. And that's, that's it. So you want to say there's no objective moral standard. So you're going to say there's no more objective standard to God, right?

There is no objective moral standard at all. At all.

So you know, so you're saying then you know of all situations, all minds and all standards. And so you universally,.

There's no objective moral standard. No, I'm saying that the whole notion of an objective standard is nonsensical. Okay. Are statements true or false? Based on what standard? Oh crap. Are you serious?

Two plus two equals four. Is that true? By the standard of mathematics? Yes. Is a statement true or false? I am a man. Is that,.

Is it simply true? It's not simply true. It's true based on the standard that we agree upon. What standard? What's a standard? The standard we agree upon, which happens to be whether, what defines you as a man and whether that standard is, is something we agree upon as correct.

Okay.

So is a statement true or false? Is a statement true or false? Depends upon the standard. If we're talking about. A horse normally has four legs. Is that true or false?

Since we have a standard of what horses is, which we agreed to commonly, we can say,.

Yes, a horse normally has four legs. The English language uses verbs and nouns. Is that true or false?

Since we agree upon the standard of the English language, yes, we can say it is true. Okay. So the square root of, of nine is three. Is that true or false? Since we agree on the standard of what nine and square roots and three are, yes, we can say that is true.

Okay. So, yours is,.

It's all been a standard. Okay. So here's a statement. Is it true or false? It's always wrong for anyone to torture, baby to death merely for one's personal pleasure. Based on what standard? You tell me, you're the one who's developing all the standards.

So if I agree upon the standard that torturing babies is wrong, because we have a notion that it's not, it's not good to, to cause harm to babies. Define what good is. What's good? Good is just a subjective, a subjective judgment that we have.

This says, this is something that's desirable or, so you can't,.

You can't know if it's good or bad to torture babies to death merely for their personal pleasure.

I can know for myself whether it is, and I can know based on a particular standard that I am aware of. And what's your belief?

What's your opinion on this? It is always wrong for everyone to torture babies to death merely for their personal pleasure.

Agree or disagree? It is my personal opinion that it is always wrong to do so. Okay. So I just said,.

It's always wrong for everyone. So your personal opinion is that there is a universal, absolute moral standard that applies to everybody, independent of their existence and independent of their desires and knowledge.

You just affirmed an objective moral standard.

No, I would not say independent of. Sure it is. No.

It's your opinion that it exists. It's your opinion that it's true for everybody, everybody all the time. That's an objective standard to them.

It is not objective, but it is absolute and it is universal. Wait a minute.

Wait a minute. Wait a minute. You just said that according to your belief, it's always wrong for everyone. That's what we call an objective standard. Okay. It applies universally to everybody. It's independent of their preferences or personal preferences.

That's what objectivity means. That's what the real definition means.

So now you're defining what the real definition means. So you're redefining it.

I'm not redefining it. You're the one who said bias. Yeah. Look, is it always true? Is the statement true? It's always wrong for anyone. And you said, yeah, it is always wrong for anyone. How do you assert that as being a universally valid statement in your subjective non-objective moral universe?

It is the standard which I hold to. It is the standard that I would impose upon others.

Whoa. So now you would impose upon others your opinion? Yes, absolutely. Everybody does. So you have the right now to impose upon everybody your subjective standard. What do you mean by right? Oh, brother.

So you have the right. You have the authority. You're the one who's saying it's good for you to do this. That you are the one who said, yeah, I would impose it upon everybody else. So you're the one who's saying you have that right to be able to do that.

I'm saying that if others did not agree with me about torturing babies, I would actually act against their desires and wills to prevent them to do so. Yes. Are they wrong if they disagree with you? By the standard that I hold to and the standard by which society would generally hold them to, yes.

So your subjective standard,.

How do you know your subjective standard is the right one? Again, what do you mean by the right one? How do you know your subjective standard is the right one? Because you want to impose it on everybody else.

Why should anybody else listen to you? Why is yours the one that should be listened to?

So basically, again, it's a matter of consensus. It's a matter of agreement among the members of society. If they don't agree with you,.

Why do you have the right to impose your value on people that don't agree with you?

In that society, I don't suppose I would have that right.

You just said you do. You said you have the right to impose it on others. Yes, you do. You said you would force it on other people. Yes, I would. You wouldn't be doing it because you don't have the right.

You'd be doing it because you say you're having the right. You're inconsistent. No, I would not say I have the right. So you don't have the right, but you would impose it on them anyway.

Yes, because I feel strongly against the torture of babies.

So you feel it, and that's why your opinion is the one that should be imposed upon others by your judgment.

I would say that, yes, I would impose it on other people based on how I feel about that particular subject, and I would have the consensus of the vast majority of society, I believe.

It was a flying rip with the consensus the majority says. You don't even know if that's the right standard, a consensus the majority of people believe slavery was right and wrong at different times in different parts of the world.

Consensus means nothing. It's called argumentum ad populum. It's a fallacy of logical argumentation, which you've employed several times. So if I were to come into your home or to come in your home with a gun, I would not do this.

But I came in your home and I robbed you, and you said, I don't like it. I say, bang, they shoot you. Am I right or wrong for doing that?

You would be wrong by my standard because it's something that I would do. I'm not talking about your standard. Talk about my standard. Let's talk about my standard. I'm the one. Am I right or am I wrong?

You would have to tell me whether or not that agrees with the standard that you believe in and hold to.

So if I say I believe that this is okay for me to do and I shoot you, am I wrong for that, objectively? No. Objectively, no. There's no possibility. So there's no problem with it. It's not an issue of right or wrong for you, is it?

It's just an issue of who has the gun.

When you say it's not an issue of right or wrong, there's nothing wrong with it, what I'm saying is that I have a problem with it.

I don't care if you have a problem with it. Who cares? I got the gun.

And so it's just a matter of force. So this is where we have morality.

Wait a minute. You said it was okay to force your view that it's wrong for everybody to do that thing. But the baby thing, you said it's okay to do that. Be consistent. Is it okay for me to shoot you and use my force?

I said I would do that. And you're saying that you would shoot me. In that hypothetical situation. Let no one take it out of context.

I'm not going to do it. You're inconsistent. You said you would force your view on others and that's okay with you. But if I do the exact same thing, then it's not okay with you. So your system contradicts itself.

How could it be true?

It doesn't contradict itself at all. I'm saying morality is a matter of consensus. If we disagree with each other, we have conflicting morals or ethics, then we don't live peacefully among each other.

You and me. You and me. You and me.

There's three factors. You, me, and my Glock. So the Glock and me win. The consensus is. And if I happen to have a buddy of mine and it's two people against you, our consensus wins. And so therefore, according to you, it's okay to do.

No, not according to me, it's okay to do. According to you.

No, no, no. According to us. No, according to what you're saying, to be consistent, you have to say, yes, it's right. Because the consensus would agree.

No, no, no. I'm saying that as far as society is concerned, society might say it's all right.

So you disagree with slavery back in the 1800s? Absolutely. I disagree with slavery. But the consensus of society was that it was okay. Who are you? You are so inconsistent.

No, I'm not inconsistent at all. Yeah, I would be inconsistent if I suggested that there was an objective moral standard which permitted slavery. Wait a minute. Or an objective moral standard which opposed slavery and then permitted it.

You said that you went with a consensus. Okay. The consensus of America 200 years ago said slavery was okay. You, by your own view, would have to say, well, they were right. It was wrong. It was okay to hold slaves.

That's what you would say. No. What I would say is that society is saying that it's right. And I would be in direct opposition to society just as many of the people in that society were.

You said by consensus. Were they right when the consensus said that slavery was okay?

By the standard of society at that time, they were right. Okay.

So they were right. Now here's a problem. So 200 years ago they were right, but now they would be wrong? If the consensus was still the same?

If the consensus was still the same that slavery is right or wrong, I'm not quite following your question.

That's right. If the consensus today was the same as it was 200 years ago, you used to say that it was okay to do.

If the consensus of society today said that slavery is still right, I would still be opposed to it, but society would still be opposed.

You'd be inconsistent because you said your morality goes with the consensus. So now you're not saying that your morality goes with the consensus. No. You're inconsistent.